By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - 'Live Explosive Device' Targets CNN At Time Warner Center; Others [deskpro2k3 almost got blown up (again)]

I don’t get the whole “but Trump is President” reply every time the left’s rhetoric is brought up. Pls explain.



Around the Network
DrDoomz said:
I don’t get the whole “but Trump is President” reply every time the left’s rhetoric is brought up. Pls explain.

You don't think there are differing expectations between the president of the united states and Snoop?



...

Torillian said:
DrDoomz said:
I don’t get the whole “but Trump is President” reply every time the left’s rhetoric is brought up. Pls explain.

You don't think there are differing expectations between the president of the united states and Snoop?

Expectations? Sure?

But I don’t see how his rhetoric makes the rhetoric of others not matter.



DrDoomz said:
Torillian said:

You don't think there are differing expectations between the president of the united states and Snoop?

Expectations? Sure?

But I don’t see how his rhetoric makes the rhetoric of others not matter.

not matter at all? sure. But I don't know how many rappers or comedians with poor rhetoric it would take in my mind to equal one president. I would argue that once we get the president to not use divisive rhetoric we can worry about random entertainers. 

politicians on the left sure, but random entertainers I just don't see how it's on anywhere near the same level. Those entertainers aren't making policy decisions that affect every american so if they want to be stupid and divisive it doesn't effect nearly as many people. 



...

Torillian said:
DrDoomz said:

Expectations? Sure?

But I don’t see how his rhetoric makes the rhetoric of others not matter.

not matter at all? sure. But I don't know how many rappers or comedians with poor rhetoric it would take in my mind to equal one president. I would argue that once we get the president to not use divisive rhetoric we can worry about random entertainers. 

politicians on the left sure, but random entertainers I just don't see how it's on anywhere near the same level. Those entertainers aren't making policy decisions that affect every american so if they want to be stupid and divisive it doesn't effect nearly as many people. 

His ability to make policy decisions shouldn’t matter all that much. It doesn’t make his words that much more powerful or influential after all. Or at least with me (and I would assume the general random normal person). Someone going “hey go punch that guy” doesn’t make me want to punch someone more just because he is suddenly President. I mean not unless he says in it an Independence Day-esque speech with music playing in the background (and even then just maybe). Are you talking about higher reach, maybe? Idunno, explain it to me.

It would maybe make his intentions more clear. And that should perhaps worry you if your policies are something you disagree with.

Well it is the job of entertainers to incite an emotional response with their target audience. I would argue that someone like Madonna could get a random crazy just as riled up (or even more) than someone like Trump given equal reach/coverage as they are far better at it.



Around the Network
DrDoomz said:
Torillian said:

not matter at all? sure. But I don't know how many rappers or comedians with poor rhetoric it would take in my mind to equal one president. I would argue that once we get the president to not use divisive rhetoric we can worry about random entertainers. 

politicians on the left sure, but random entertainers I just don't see how it's on anywhere near the same level. Those entertainers aren't making policy decisions that affect every american so if they want to be stupid and divisive it doesn't effect nearly as many people. 

His ability to make policy decisions shouldn’t matter all that much. It doesn’t make his words that much more powerful or influential after all. Or at least with me (and I would assume the general random normal person). Someone going “hey go punch that guy” doesn’t make me want to punch someone more just because he is suddenly President. I mean not unless he says in it an Independence Day-esque speech with music playing in the background (and even then just maybe). Are you talking about higher reach, maybe? Idunno, explain it to me.

It would maybe make his intentions more clear. And that should perhaps worry you if your policies are something you disagree with.

Well it is the job of entertainers to incite an emotional response with their target audience. I would argue that someone like Madonna could get a random crazy just as riled up (or even more) than someone like Trump given equal reach/coverage as they are far better at it.

You don't think that the president's words have more impact and authority behind them than Madonna's? I would argue that it's much easier to feel justified in something when someone from a position of authority says it rather than someone whose music you like. 

I also notice that you said "given equal reach/coverage" but that's not the case s it? The president has far more reach and coverage as he should in most cases. 

All of this is assuming we're limiting the discussion solely to one's ability to "rile up a crazy person". Looking at the questions more holistically though, I think you cannot underestimate the importance of someone being able to put their divisive thoughts into practice through policy. 



...

melbye said:
Oopth said:

It's just not healthy that Trump's rhetoric could lead to someone carrying out this act. Sanders has never incited violence against anyone unlike the President. 

Nah, dude was crazy way before Trump became president

Thats the thing.  People have been telling Trump that his words have weight.  It really only take a little nudge for the crazy people like this to find a purpose.  As we all know there are a ton of crazy people in the US.  We have numerous shootings all the time.  We have seen people become radicalize over the simplest of things.  The president has a huge following, it really only take a few choice words from him to send that one crazy idiot on a mission.  No this is not only just on the president, its any celebrity.  The thing is the bigger the celebrity, the higher the chances.

Unfortunately with this President, even if someone was killed, he still would not admit that he should tone it down but instead double down as he has always done when he is wrong.



Torillian said:
DrDoomz said:

His ability to make policy decisions shouldn’t matter all that much. It doesn’t make his words that much more powerful or influential after all. Or at least with me (and I would assume the general random normal person). Someone going “hey go punch that guy” doesn’t make me want to punch someone more just because he is suddenly President. I mean not unless he says in it an Independence Day-esque speech with music playing in the background (and even then just maybe). Are you talking about higher reach, maybe? Idunno, explain it to me.

It would maybe make his intentions more clear. And that should perhaps worry you if your policies are something you disagree with.

Well it is the job of entertainers to incite an emotional response with their target audience. I would argue that someone like Madonna could get a random crazy just as riled up (or even more) than someone like Trump given equal reach/coverage as they are far better at it.

1. You don't think that the president's words have more impact and authority behind them than Madonna's? I would argue that it's much easier to feel justified in something when someone from a position of authority says it rather than someone whose music you like. 

2. I also notice that you said "given equal reach/coverage" but that's not the case s it? The president has far more reach and coverage as he should in most cases. 

3. All of this is assuming we're limiting the discussion solely to one's ability to "rile up a crazy person". Looking at the questions more holistically though, I think you cannot underestimate the importance of someone being able to put their divisive thoughts into practice through policy. 

1. I don’t see how you’d feel that. Being justified to do what? How is feeling slightly more justified make them much more likely act a certain way? How is that better than being able to incite powerful emotional responses? I mean how about talk show commentators justifying certain actions thru expert oration? Wouldn’t that have a stronger impact than the words of an oratorially-inept politician?

2. Depends. The media controls reach. And they can even control the message. They can twist Trump’s words if they choose to do so. Or enhance it for maximum damage. Maybe we’re both looking at the wrong party here when it comes to damage caused by negative rhetoric?

3. I’m not underestimating, though. My question was how “But Trump is President” has become some kind of catch-all response when the rhetoric from the left is brought up as I feel that, to be logically consistent and intellectually honest, we need to condemn both to condemn one. I, personally, are in the camp of “I don’t really care” as I am strongly for personal responsibility but I am actually just curious on how those who use that logic have it works out in their mind.



melbye said:
Hiku said:

Yes, because Bernie encouraged violence among his own people.
In fact I have some Bernie quotes here:


(It's missing some of my favorite quotes though, like "I'll pay your legal fees" and "maybe you second amendment people can do something about it.")

Don't make false equivalences. I saw this inaccurate Bernie comparison from Lindsey Graham and certain right wing media, and I expected people to parrot it in this thread without even considering why people are discussing Trump.
It's not because this person was a Trump fan. That would be ridiculous. It's because of Trump encouraging violence. Both politically motivated violence, and otherwise. This is not normal for a president in a non authoritarian country. And what a president says, when millions of people look up to him (and some event believe he was sent by God), has consequences.

No one in Washington (to my knowledge) has encouraged political violence, except for Trump.
That has been the narrative for a few years now. This is not a new subject.
If Bernie had told his supporters to injure protesters, or "Maybe you second amendment people can do something about it", etc, then yes, his influence on the shooter would have been considered and his behavior criticized.

But as it stands, we can't say that Bernie has said anything that promoted violence among his supporters.
The same however can not be said of Trump.

Remember what Maxine Waters said about confronting republicans, the this happened

"A Republican candidate for the Minnesota House said Monday that he is recovering after suffering a concussion from an attack at a restaurant in St. George Township a few days earlier."

http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-house-candidate-says-he-was-attacked-at-benton-county-restaurant/497605921/

Here is why this defense against Trump from people who support him doesn't work.  When you thrown in Maxine Waters into the mix and then post a message like this you are not defending Trump, you are actually proving everyone right.  So if Maxine was wrong in what she said and used her influence to cause violence then does this not make Trump just as guilty if not worst.  In other words, you are willing to condemn one but absolve the other instead of condemning both.  This is why siding with a political party or a person without admitting to their flaws make it seems you are radicalize.  They both should be condemned for their words and their actions.



DrDoomz said:
Torillian said:

1. You don't think that the president's words have more impact and authority behind them than Madonna's? I would argue that it's much easier to feel justified in something when someone from a position of authority says it rather than someone whose music you like. 

2. I also notice that you said "given equal reach/coverage" but that's not the case s it? The president has far more reach and coverage as he should in most cases. 

3. All of this is assuming we're limiting the discussion solely to one's ability to "rile up a crazy person". Looking at the questions more holistically though, I think you cannot underestimate the importance of someone being able to put their divisive thoughts into practice through policy. 

1. I don’t see how you’d feel that. Being justified to do what? How is feeling slightly more justified make them much more likely act a certain way? How is that better than being able to incite powerful emotional responses? I mean how about talk show commentators justifying certain actions thru expert oration? Wouldn’t that have a stronger impact than the words of an oratorially-inept politician?

2. Depends. The media controls reach. And they can even control the message. They can twist Trump’s words if they choose to do so. Or enhance it for maximum damage. Maybe we’re both looking at the wrong party here when it comes to damage caused by negative rhetoric?

3. I’m not underestimating, though. My question was how “But Trump is President” has become some kind of catch-all response when the rhetoric from the left is brought up as I feel that, to be logically consistent and intellectually honest, we need to condemn both to condemn one. I, personally, are in the camp of “I don’t really care” as I am strongly for personal responsibility but I am actually just curious on how those who use that logic have it works out in their mind.

1. I think we just disagree on this one. To me, the president of the united states has much more reach and influence than any of the people listed on the left so I think it's reasonable to try and tackle that first. Getting Trump to stop using such rhetoric is the single most impactful thing one can do if you want to curb negative rhetoric. 

3. As someone who would prefer no negative rhetoric on either side, I would like to curb it in the most effective way. So rather than try to curb things from the general nebulous mob of "the left" I think it is much more useful, practical, and important to focus on the single most powerful person in the world and his rhetoric. After that I'll try to work on the comedians and talk show hosts. 



...